Outside of the West the notion of romantic love was something foreign. Before the adoption and/or exportation of romantic, chivalric love into other societies -- arranged marriages, or marriages selected by one or both partners based on mutual utility and benefit to the community were the norm. Love and marriage were not seen as synonymous things, they were most often separate.
Marriage, sex and love most often did not go together. No more than they go together now, or have ever.
Sex within unions was for the purpose of procreation, and sex for enjoyment as well as love commonly existed outside unions. Marriage was a working, familial or tribal relationship; a business-like social contract. It was not seen as something to emotionally or sexually fulfill the individuals involved, but as an obligation and duty to secure and/or progress society - also in the case of men, a way to secure a legacy by the only legitimate way to create linage.
This idea of marriage and love being intertwined had been foreign to the West as well prior to Medieval times during which the 'ideal' of chivalry began to be promoted -enforced, even- intitally by the Church as a means of social control directed at Knights. It later extended its sphere of social conditioning to the masses as the common man grew in power, all culminating in the Romance period and coinciding with industrialization.
The fact that the Romance period of Europe and rise of industrialization coincide is not simple coincidence. The lies of marital bliss and emotional, personal as well as interpersonal completion inherent in matrimony, women being mans 'natural partner' as well as the 'angelic nature' of femininity fed to men helped fuel the economic engine needed to power and spread industrialization in its early days. In truth, unions between man and women were and always had been a job, of which, men were once keenly aware as they were advised such.
The powers needed people consuming and reproducing: Men spending massive amounts of wealth on women and their families, women spending massive amounts of mens wealth (most often on themselves), and last but not least they needed more humans than ever before as laborers, which would in turn also further expand human consumption.
Thus we had a population explosion, a new middle (worker/consumer) class, the exploration, colonization and exploitation of the world to feed this hungry machine designed to exploit the nature of both men and women, as well as their natural, yet divergent desires which they sought from one another.
It was a system which appealed to the worst in both men and women, our basest, most narcasstic and primitive biological imparitives. Its fairy-tale promises appealed to our infantile, base desires which we were once expected to be discarded, and in many cases needed to dispensed -or at least reigned in- for the safety and security of society, since when life was a great deal harsher neither people nor their societies could afford people well past childhood running around with childhood fantasies and delusions. Man or woman, you either got -entirely- real or you died.
In this new order, those once dangerous --and childish-- aspects of man and woman once held in check were feeding right into the system tailored to them. It was quite productive; however, a system reliant on an unhealthy form of production appealing to base human desires will create a society based, rooted and principled in those very same malignant ideals.
Today's modern societies are a reflection of those tools which were used to create it. In short, in these early days they needed capital, human capital being the most essential. In our post-industrial age this lead to its inevitable conclusion. We have this old model designed for expanding industrialization to thank for our current human existence: Work, provide, consume, reproduce, die. For men, there's the occasional 'fight, die' thrown in.
It has lead to our current situation, and this was the basic intent all along, it worked brilliantly and did exactly what it was intended to do. Now, in the post-industrial landscape society is consuming itself. With women being both deliberately angled as well as naturally inclined towards primary consumption (gatherers), society is being consumed by this aspect of female nature run rampant, a nature which men were conditioned to encourage as well as support long ago. Now, with the surplus having dried up - society is consuming itself.
Allow me to use Japan as a model with which to further illustrate the destructive nature of this system, as it was the first and most successful non-western country to adopt this system:
In Japan, the Meiji reformation (1868-1912) urged industrialization in order to protect Japan from being colonized by Western nations. Throughout most of Japans industrialization, unlike in the west, the divorce rate actually decreased even despite an increasing number of working women.
The reason for this was due to the changing ideas and ideals of Japanese society. Divorce was initiated by the old idea of "mutual consent" which the wife seldom refused; attitudes toward divorce among the people, especially women, contributed to a decline in divorce rates throughout the industrialization period.
Japan was spared the typical pattern of rising divorce during industrialization due to deliberate political decisions and legal acts, based on the ideology of the Meiji reformers. New legal codes imposed the family patterns of the samurai on all Japanese. Japanese leaders were well aware of the threat of industrialization as they went abroad to assimilate the entrepreneurial culture and technology which the Western nations possessed.
Prior to the reformation of marriage and divorce in rural regions --like any pre-modern society-- the situation looked precisely as it did in the West before the state began to control marriage unions during the industralization process. Japan, as in Western nations, had rural-agrarian customs that predominated and divorce was uncommon. In rural farm villages, polygamy and sexual liaisons were the norm and monogamy or a marriage system itself was seldom practiced.
Essentially, prior to the start of modernity male-female 'unions' in the West as surely as in Japan looked practically indentical to what many in the MRM (especially MGTOW) propose as the ideal.
The Japanese government did not intend to accept the Western ideology of industrialization as they knew the dangers it would pose to their society. They simply wanted only to learn and apply what was necessary to be on-par insofar as industrailization without the modernity that followed in the western model. This is called “Wakon-Yosai”, which means Japanese spirit combined with Western learning.
In short, Japan saw how Western society had been consumed and did not want theirs to suffer the same fate, so with great, stubborn intent they remainied a medieval society but with industrial infrastructure. Their society remained frozen at the stage prior to undergoing the catalyst that sowed the seeds of what would become the fruit we all now enjoy as modernity.
Fast forward...
In and around 1970-1980, with Japans industrial power reaching levels which rivaled the 1900s (their industrial revolution), the Japanese economic explosion soon occurred.
At such an advanced stage of industrial power and this time without a great war to cause women to seek shelter behind men (by way of the state since the rest were busy dying), the sustainability of “Wakon-Yosai”' or 'Japanese spirit' with 'Western learning' began to diminish in many ways. But the ways I am referring to are those which checked womens hypergamous instinct. The spirit of the samurai wife and mother with its sense of loyalty to family and communal duty began to give way to the spirit of modernity.
In the subsequent economic collapse of the 1990s the divorce rate sharply increased to record highs. This is not at all surprising: during the economic boom Japan became more individualistic than it had ever been, one of the results was freeing women from most of their social mores and expectations whereas mens in comparison remained firmly in-place.
When the collapse occurred and Japan suddenly had what women would have seen as broke men, and with their new found individuality and absence of "Wakon-Yosai" these women, naturally, were not interested in such men. These very men who went broke for the very benefit of said women, their children, and the society which nutured and protected them were now derided and discarded.
Many wives left their now struggling husbands and took their children with them as well as avoiding struggling men which was perfectly acceptable as the ideals and expectations of men, unlike theirs, remained. Indeed, a far cry from the honor and dedication possessed by the wives of samurai, no?
Additionally, women in Japan as in nearly every industrialized nation of time were cushioned from hard economic times and joblessness as they were disproportionately represented in the drone-model jobs which paid well enough but produced little. Why would these women want a man dragging them and/or their children down, after all?
Also, why chance spending money on men when they could spend it on themselves? Is it not convieniant how well this works for the system? It ensured that it remains fed. If women put too much money into their families or communities during such times, the system would starve. Horray for industrail-styled individualism?
Getting back on track:
These drone-model jobs reserved as the role for women did, however, keep the engine running as was the intention. They were unimportant insofar as production, yet in a way were more valuable to the system than mens jobs -on a base level- as they prevented the total collapse of the system.
Men not only naturally prefered to avoid these jobs due to favoring grander ambitions, but also this was also exactly what was expected of them under duress of overbearing social pressure. Womens new place in their industrial society had become that of maintaining the most basic functioning of industry, while men empowered and fed the industry. Sounds familiar, yes?
The above video is part of a series called "stepping up". It's contents amount to a bunch of modern Churchians of the Christian variety ruminating on the crisis that is young men refusing to "accept responsibility" and marry self serving divorce prone women.
Us MGTOW are an independent bunch, and as such I will say here that I do not care what God one does or doesn't worship, but messages like these, from sanctimonious "real man" religious zealots are classified as exactly what they are here, that is, an attempt to get men back on the plantation where they (the expendable workhorses that they are) belong. The following is a contribution by blood rabbit offering his analysis of this shame fest headed up by Whiteknight televangelist Mark Driscoll:
Adolescence is being extended as a natural result of modernity as well as the rise of life-expectancy. Adolescence itself is new on the scene of humanity. The concept literally did not exist until recently in human history. Not so long ago, a boy went immediately to the plow the same day he was strong enough to use one and on that day, he went from child to man. There was no concept of adolescence before industrialization and the rise of modernity. It's only natural that this artificial intermediary stage is being expanded, as the key word here is artificial.
Men can no longer safely rely on being told by some socital standard, "now you are a man", those times have past, and the days of the lingering facade numbered. The post-feminist man is a man when he himself is able to tell himself he is a man and believe it. He decides for himself. Before Medieval times, Barbarians, Greeks, Romans, it was chiefly elder men who dictated the rites of passage into manhood. During and after the Romance period women began dictating when a male became a man. This lead to a vision of manhood almost exclusively tailored to suit the needs to women. Men now have no other choice than to become self-deterministic in regards to their identity.
With the social changes in the most advanced developing nations, we can see our past unfolding at an accelerated rate. Take China, which up until recently was very conservative. There we find a popular song among women belonging to the new super-wealthy class, in which women sing about how their mothers told them to never marry a man without a car, a house, and money in the bank. They go on to say that they own a car, a house, and have money in the bank, and alert men to not attempt to be with them if you don't have the same -or preferably more- as they "aren't going to be your mother."
They don't see the problem with their logic. "I have everything I need, so I expect you to bring me more than I need." They deride men who they see as using them as their mothers, yet find it perfectly acceptable to have a daddy -- even though practically speaking they do not need one.
---
Reference:
---
So what do these women want? They don't know as they're torn between their biology and modern reality. They want to be given provision by man, yet they already have all the provision they need without a man. They want a man who they see as superior to themselves, yet they see themselves so highly that no man can compete -in a provider sense- with themselves.
Why should men continue to provide to women who no longer need providers, especially since this is the main reason they have always been interested in us. However, in these women, their instinct to be provided for still exists despite having more provision than they need - with or without men. This instinct in women to be provided for once worked before the onset of modernity. The female was given provision, and in exchange she bore him children and cared for them and helped care for things while he was away when he needed to leave the cave to hunt, to fight, to build.
We are not going back, even if we wanted to (which I certainly do not) we couldn't. We can only move forward from here. To where? Where it will lead is not yet known, exactly.
But I digress...
These men speaking in this video are in denial. These men have no actual use in the way which they believe they do. It's an illusion propped up by their churches -in their case- and encouraged by women who enjoy the arrangement. For whatever reasons this seems most beneficial to them, as opposed to the more 'modern' woman mindset. These men are not needed. These men are 'playing man', and the women are 'playing pre-modern woman.'
The women in these mens lives do not need them, it is these men who need the women to shore up their false sense of utility, identity and purpose. We all know these women could leave them at any time and take half or more of everything the own and earn up until these men retire, and take their children along with them. These men live in fairly-tale castles. I think we all can agree the women in their lives are all too aware of this reality, these women know that their mens role is hollow.
So who is worse? The men opting out and doing so-called 'childish' things to give some semblance of happiness and fulfillment to their lives, or these self-deluded men who believe they are important as paper-husbands, paper-providers and paper-fathers? Further, why are the enjoyable hobbies of men attacked as childish? It is meant to shame men as those hobbies in no way benefit women. Women do a multitude of things to entertain themselves which men have seen as silly for ages yet they are not attacked for it.
Mark Driscoll begins early on attacking modern men for being "porn-heads." Why do we not ask why men are more and more preferring images over flesh and blood? That's pretty extreme, wouldn't you say, Mark? So what warrants it on the part of women? Said men prefer pornography as they either find women thoroughly unfulfilling, or comically overpriced. I think it's more than safe to say that most men would prefer to have flesh and blood women, so the fact that men are abstaining for porn truly says something.
But let us talk about the other aspect of which Driscoll speaks: "Men who just want good times." It's the same deal as the men trading women for porn, only these men are trying to cling to some semblance of what they'd naturally prefer. They do however still risk the damage of possibly having a child with the wrong woman, who constitute the majority of these women, they risk emotional damage, manipulation, as well as an inevitable sacrifice of dignity (you don't play the game, the game plays you).
Also, you these Driscoll types speak nothing of women shamelessly and unapologetically trolling for penis on craigslist and okcupid. Personally, I find that much more base than pornograhpy, and a great deal more disgusting. At least with porn you aren't debasing yourself on a personal and social level. I find this rather common passtime of women more degenerate than a man seeking prostitution, for that matter.
Speaking on that: I lived in Australia for a great many years of my adult life and had the opportunity of seeking out completely legal, and very affordable prostitution yet I did not. That was my personal decision, and I do not condemn prostitution; further I don't believe it should be illegal anywhere. It ought to be available to men who want it as it's natural, and the women involved in legal, regulated prostitution are far from victims. They live quite well in their chosen occupation (yes, I do see it as a valid and even valuable occupation). The point is, Mark, these men are no bigger perverts in general than women are in general. Often times men have higher moral standards, in my experiance.
We all understand --be we religious or non-religiouis- that porn is not an ideal thing, Mark. But we all have basic humans needs, and ours as men are not being satisfied by women.
Mark speaks of women supposedly rising to, and usurping the male role. Women are going to college and working more than men but tend to get junk degrees, or chase after degrees that only benefit themselves rather than help society as a whole. The overwhelming majority use their jobs and education to make money (for themselves) and then after they spend their own, go on to spend the money of the men in their lives, as well as the governments.
We often hear of the "Real Men ™", but seldom to never do we hear any notion of the "Real Women ™", reason being that there have always been fewer constructs in the west on what constitutes a woman. However, what few constructs existed have fallen away with modernity and we are seeing real women. The only way to see 'real men' is to, as man, remove our constructs as well. Any man who removes his traditional societal constructions and notions of manhood and thinks and behaves freely will truly find himself as a man. It might be so utterly different from his previous notions of who he is that he might run back to the Matrix. He might even be terrified finding himself thinking, feeling, and enjoying things which he himself once ridiculed.
Feminist 'intellectuals' believed that all gender differences were artificial constructs, and if you took the constructs away men and women would be the same.
With this little experiment, the opposite was proven. Remove traditionalist gender constructs, and we all become base men and women. That is, real men and women. What is 'real' in the essence of sex and/or gender is what exists when you strip away the constructs designed to keep natural instincts in check as well as reengineer them to create a certain societal order which varies slightly accross cultures.
Traditional constructs which once helped usher in civilization, sustains and advances it by checking men and women in different ways. Since men and women no longer need each other in any truly meaningful capacity, these constructs have become hollow and defunct. So in this, the "Real Man" ideal these men would have us "step up" to would be more aptly referred to as "Artificial Man", Traditional man, pre-modern man and pre-feminist man all work as well, but I find "Artificial Man" to be much more apt.
I am a man without constructs other than the personalized constructs I decidedly create and build for myself; therefore, in that sense I am truly a real man. A free man. A man who can determine who he is, himself, ever furthering the distance between myself and the burning, sinking ship of traditionalism.
The man who speaks of these men who are "Just not happy" and feel shame, and are not proud for 'having mastered Modern Warfare 3', I know these men well. They have internalized what women and western society feels about them. They've been lied to and ensured that something 'greater' exists, which is presently outside of their reach. They've been fed the false-truths that they should be married, and meet certain criteria, or else they wouldn't ever be complete or happy. What they don't realize is that is the true reason they aren't happy are not the reasons they offer up. They aren't happy as they've been told they aren't, or shouldn't be, So some get married, embarking on some mythical journey of becoming an “adult”. They endeavored to become the definition of a man which was more like the one defined for them rather than the one they'd have defined for themselves.
Speaking for myself, one can 'mock' and 'attack' me all they wish, and it will not 'shame' me. I enjoy whatever I wish and this isn't any of Driscoll's, societies, or womens business. It will not 'send me further' anywhere other than where I wish to be. It might however, fuel my fire to destroy your false-order. I no longer hold myself back or limit myself due to imposed and suffocating stigmas, and I needn't do anything for you as it's not me you care about but desperately using me as a tool to keep your world order from crumbling (which it is, and it shall). I do not care what inconsequential people want or think; like you, like women. I can breath. I am free.
These men in this video, like myself once, wish they could do what we can. That is, not only enjoy whatever we wish, even things society would mock, and not have an ounce of shame about it. The truth is, deep down, you men want to be us.
Every bit as much as what motivates women to attack men for doing things they do not want us to, things which do not fit what is beneficial for them -- part of what motivates males to attack those same men is jealously and fear. They are jealous that we are free to do anything we wish with pride and without shame, and they are fearful as it threatens their fragile and limited worldview. It forces them to see that perhaps they aren't so happy following the dictates of women and western society. So keep repeating to yourselves, Mark Driscoll and Co, "We are happy, fulfilled and proud."
Personally, I need only say it once, Sirs.
Anyway...
On to 'the bar' dilemma.
This concerned wife and mother: what is her real motivation here?
In this fictional --but all too true to life-- scenario, she doesn't seem concerned for her sons welfare but simply concerned about her son losing his job. She threatens to move out if he loses his job again. It seems to be that she is concerned with the loss of her sons income. The fact that this is portrayed in this fictional scenario without much thought shows that the creators of that scene were well accustomed to this scenario in their own, real lives, and find this attitude as well as her behavior perfectly acceptable. Why doesn't she go get a job. Further, why doesn't she go try to 'fetch' her son. She sends her older mule to fetch her younger mule.
In the scene upon arriving at the bar, his son exhibits terrifying, untamed masculinity. He is 'free' and doing as he wishes and this is portrayed as negative. He is not under the control of the mother by proxy of the father. The father falls under the evil influence of his son and regains the ability to live life as he once did before finding the wise guidance of women and goes back to his old self prior to having his balls cut off. Two adult men acting freely, the father free from his wife (who is essentially his mother), and adult son free from his mother, this is for some reason portrayed as an ominous thing.
"Just don't tell your mother" says the father, which may as well be "Just don't tell OUR mother."
This ends with a man telling us that we are now left with "confusion, complexity and uncertainty", that's called life, bud. It's life when you're not deluded with a false sense of security, and yes, I suppose it is not for everyone.
What we are seeing there, with the artificial constructs and ideas falling away is reality. Things are indeed confusing, complex, and uncertain; they always have been and will be for millenia to come. That causes fear in many people. That's why religion evolved in the first place, and that's what lead to philosophy and then modern science. You have a traditional belief system that artificially gives you a sense of certainty about how things are, and are supposed to be. There's another route though, and that is self-determinism, yet that doesn't offer the fluffy warm blanket of delusion that these gentlemen wrap themselves up in.
The truth will set you free, but no one said being set free is easy. Before you can enjoy the freedom you must come to terms with the cold stinging pain of reality. Yes, I can see why that would turn you away from it. You are frightened. We, Sirs, are not. Not anymore.
Posted with Blogsy